JUDGMENT Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J. - The present appeal is preferred under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act calling in question the judgment and award passed in LAC No.21/2014 dated 20.01.2018 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC Sindagi (for brevity hereinafter referred to as 'reference Court'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that The land bearing Sy.No.65/1 of Ganganahalli village, Sindagi Taluk, Vijayapur District which has subject matter in this appeal was acquired for the purpose of construction of Indi Lift Irrigation Canal vide preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') dated 29.03.2010. The Special Land Acquisition Officer/appellant herein has determined the market value at Rs.34,515/- per acre for irrigated land and fixed the rate of house property at 50% over and above the value allowed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) and determined the compensation of Rs.2,27,263/- per house property along with statutory benefits. 3. The respondents are the land loser claiming to be aggrieved by the same have filed protest petition under Section 18(3)(a) of the Act, which came to be referred to the reference Court in LAC No.21/2014. The reference Court after considering the case had fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.5,27,695/- per acre for irrigated land and fixed the rate of house property at 50% over and above the value allowed by the SLAO and determined the compensation of Rs.2,27,263/- and has awarded other statutory benefits as per the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the reference Court determining the market value at the rate of Rs.5,27,695/- per acre for irrigated land, the State has preferred the present appeal and learned Additional Government Advocate submitted the following contentions requesting the Court to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the reference Court, which are follows: i. It is submitted that the market value determined by the reference Court by holding the lands in question as irrigated lands is contrary to the evidence on record but the subject lands are dry lands. Therefore, submitted that market value to be determined considering the fact that the subject lands are dry lands. ii. Therefore, submitted that market value to be determined considering the fact that the subject lands are dry lands. ii. Further submitted that in LAC Nos.21 to 25 of 2011, the lands acquired are situated in Chikkarugi village but in the present case the subject lands are situated in Ganganahalli Village and therefore both are having different natures and situated in different villages. But the reference Court without any evidence has considered the value of the lands in Chikkarugi village as base for determining the market value in the present case. Therefore, submitted that the finding in this regard of the reference Court do not have any basis. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the market value determined by the reference Court is as per the evidence adduced before the reference Court and are legal and justified. Hence, there is no need to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the reference Court. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record. The points arise for our consideration in this appeal is- "Whether the judgment and award passed by the reference Court determining the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.5,27,695/- per acre by holding the lands are irrigated land thus requires any interference by this Court?" 7. In the present case, the reference Court had awarded compensation holding the land in question is irrigated land and thus fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.5,27,695/- per acre and in respect of house property the reference Court had fixed at 50% over and above the value allowed by the SLAO and determined the compensation of Rs.2,27,263/- for house property. The reference Court by adopting the method of placing reliance on the value fixed in respect of the lands acquired in the same village or the neighbouring village while ascertaining the market value and therefore by relying on Ex.P.3 which is judgment passed in LAC Nos.21 to 25 of 2011 dated 25.11.2013 by reference Court at Sindagi, accordingly passed judgment and award. The reference Court has made a comparison of the lands noted in the said Ex.P.3 judgment and in the present case also the reference Court has concluded that the subject lands are irrigated lands. The reference Court has made a comparison of the lands noted in the said Ex.P.3 judgment and in the present case also the reference Court has concluded that the subject lands are irrigated lands. The reference Court has observed that, in Ex.P.3 judgment, the lands are situated at Chikkarugi village and 4(1) notification is on 28.10.2006 and the purpose of acquisition is for irrigation purpose and in the present case the land is situated at Ganganahalli Village and 4(1) notification issued on 29.03.2010 for the purpose of irrigation. The reference Court has further observed the villages of Ganganahalli and Chikkarugi are adjoining to each other and the lands in the judgment at Ex.P.3 and in the present case the acquisition of the lands are for the same purpose of constructing a lift irrigation canal under the Upper Krishna Project. Therefore, the reference Court the base for determination of market value at the rate of Rs.4,50,700/- per acre for irrigated land as the lands are adjacent to each other. Since in the present case the 4(1) notification is issued on 29.03.2010, that is, after three years five months, therefore escalation at the rate of 5% is considered and therefore, awarded Rs.5,27,695/- per acre considering the lands are irrigated lands. 8. The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the land in question acquired in the present case is not irrigated land but it is dry land and the reference Court has misconstrued itself and wrongly appreciated the evidence on record and came to the erroneous conclusion that the land in question is irrigated land. Therefore, submitted compensation is to be re-determined considering the lands as dry lands. 9. On the other hand the learned counsel for respondents/claimants submitted that the land in question is irrigated land and in this regard the respondents/claimants have produced documentary evidence and based on that the reference Court has held as irrigated land and accordingly awarded compensation and therefore there is no need for interference with the judgment and award of the reference Court. 10. In the light of the above rival contention the question to be considered in the present appeal is, "whether the land in question is dry land or irrigated land as per the evidences available on record." 11. 10. In the light of the above rival contention the question to be considered in the present appeal is, "whether the land in question is dry land or irrigated land as per the evidences available on record." 11. Ex.R.1 is the copy of general award produced by the SLAO before the reference Court in which the spot inspection was made and found that the land is ordinary land ( g r) and dry land (R d ) and found the crops were rain fed crop. Hence, came to conclusion that the lands are dry lands. 12. Upon considering Ex.P.1, which is the RTC extract, produced by the respondents/claimants themselves, we find there is no mention regarding water source for irrigation purpose. It is just stated there is a borewell in column No.11. But upon perusing Ex.P.1 RTC extract there is no crop mentioned. If the land is irrigated land then definitely there would have been crops, which are cultivated on the irrigated land. But Ex.P.1 RTC extracts itself reveals there is no crop cultivation on the land. Just because there is borewell situated that cannot be said that the land is converted into irrigated land, unless it is shown that borewell is under use and functioning. Also Ex.P.2 document which is certificate issued by the HESCOM which shows electricity connection was taken for running 5 HP motor. In this regard the cross-examination of claimant is to be considered. The respondents/claimants admitted that since there is a depletion of water in the borewell, hence water is not available continuously throughout the year. It is also admitted by PW.1 claimant that in Ex.P1 RTC extract there is no mentioning of crop cultivated on the land. Further PW.1 claimant admitted that since there is no water in the borewell, therefore, the borewell is disused. Further respondents/claimants have not produced any receipts to prove that what are the crops were taken to APMC market or the other market in order to show, what are the crops sold by them which are cultivated on the land. 13. Therefore, upon considering the evidence on record as discussed above, there is some force in the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the land is dry land and not irrigated land. 13. Therefore, upon considering the evidence on record as discussed above, there is some force in the submission made by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the land is dry land and not irrigated land. The spot inspection made by the appellant SLAO at the time of passing award is reflected in Ex.R1 award is fortified by the admissions given by the claimants in their course of cross-examination. As discussed above, it is demonstrated that, in the land in question there is no source of water for irrigation purpose. Hence lands are not irrigated land. Thus, we conclude that the lands acquired are dry lands. Therefore, in this regard the observations made by the reference Court holding the lands acquired are irrigated lands is contrary to the evidence on record and thus, the finding that the lands are irrigated is perverse one. Therefore, from the discussion above, it is demonstrated that the lands in question are dry lands and accordingly the market rate of the lands are liable to be re-determined taking into consideration that the lands are dry lands. 14. As per Ex.P.3 judgment (LAC No.21 to 25 of 2011 dated 25.11.2013) on which the reference Court has relied on for holding market rate of the land and determined the market value for dry land at Rs.3,00,500/- per acre. Since in the present case the land in question is situated at Ganganahalli village and it is not disputed fact that this is adjacent to Chikkarugi Village and the lands in Chikkarugi village and Ganganahalli village are acquired for the same purpose and lying within the same taluka, the market value of the lands in the present case is held as is held in Ex.P.3 (LAC No.21 to 25 of 2011) for dry lands. When the lands are adjacent to each other and coming within the same taluka the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is guiding the factor how to determine the market value of the land situated in the same taluka and in this regard we place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ali Mohammad Beigh and others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2017) 4 SCC 717 , at paras 12 and 13 observed as follows ;- "12. When the lands are more or less situated nearby and when the acquired lands are identical and similar and the acquisition is for the same purpose, it would not be proper to discriminate between the landowners unless there are strong reasons. In Union of India vs. Bal Ram, (2010) 5 SCC 747 , this Court held that if the purpose of acquisition is same and when the lands are identical and similar though lying in different villages, there is no justification to make any discrimination between the landowners to pay more to some of the landowners and less compensation to others. The same was the view taken in Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh, (2005) 12 SCC 564 , wherein this Court held as under: (SCC pp.568-69, para 15-16) "15. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and we see no justification to interfere with the decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court ( Harinderpal Singh v. Punjab State,1996 SCCOnLine(P&H) 1243 ) which, in our view, took a pragmatic approach in fixing the market value of the lands forming the subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings at a uniform rate. From the sketch plan of the area in question, it appears to us that while the lands in question are situated in five different villages, they can be consolidated into one single unit with little to choose between one stretch of land and another. The entire area is in a stage of development and the different villages are capable of being developed in the same manner as the lands comprised in Kala Ghanu Pur where the market value of the acquired lands was fixed at a uniform rate of Rs 40,000 per acre. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court discarded the belting method of valuation having regard to the local circumstances and features and no cogent ground has been made out to interfere with the same. 16. In our view, in the absence of any contemporaneous document, the market value of the acquired lands of Village Kala Ghanu Pur which were acquired at the same time as the lands in the other five villages was correctly taken to be a comparative unit for determination of the market value of the lands comprising the lands forming the subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings under consideration ." 13. When the lands are acquired at the same time and for the same purpose that is for resettlement of Dal dwellers, the lands situated in three different villages namely, Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora, and since the land is similar land, it would be unfair to discriminate between the landowners and other references and the appellants who are the landowners in Reference No.15 and pay less that is Rs.2,50,000/- per kanal to the appellants and pay more to other landowners that is Rs.4,00,000/- per kanal. Impugned judgments of the High Court in CIA No.211 of 2009 and Cross Appeal No. 64 of 2011 are to be set aside by enhancing the compensation to Rs.4,00,000 per kanal. As a sequel to this, the order passed in review is also to be set aside." 15. Therefore, for determination of market value for acquisition of land at Chikkarugi Village as per 4(1) notification dated 28.10.2006 is to be taken into consideration and accordingly the market value for the dry land is fixed at Rs.3,00,500/- per acre in the present case. For acquisition of the land in Ex.P.3 (LAC No.21 to 25 of 2011 dated 25.11.2013) the 4(1) notification is issued on 28.10.2006 and in the present case the 4(1) notification is issued on 29.03.2010. Therefore there is a time gap of three years five months in these two notifications and if 5% of escalation per year is given then it would be the proper and correct to determine the market value. Since the lands in Chikkuragi Village and lands in Ganganahalli Village are acquired for the same purpose and these villages are adjacent to each other. Accordingly, determining the market value of the land at Rs.3,00,500/- per acre for dry land with escalation of 5% per year is added and thus, the determination of market value is computed and quantified as follows ;- 3,00,500x5/100=15,025/- (for one year). Therefore, for three years escalation would be 15,025x3=45,075/-. Then for five months escalation is at Rs.6,260/- (Rs.15,025x1/12x5). Therefore, for three years five months the 5% escalation is of Rs.51,335/- (45,075+6,260). Therefore if this amount of Rs.51,335/- is added to Rs.3,00,500/- then it would be Rs.3,51,835/-. Therefore, in the present case the market value is re-determined at Rs.3,51,835/- per acre. Therefore, for three years escalation would be 15,025x3=45,075/-. Then for five months escalation is at Rs.6,260/- (Rs.15,025x1/12x5). Therefore, for three years five months the 5% escalation is of Rs.51,335/- (45,075+6,260). Therefore if this amount of Rs.51,335/- is added to Rs.3,00,500/- then it would be Rs.3,51,835/-. Therefore, in the present case the market value is re-determined at Rs.3,51,835/- per acre. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the reference Court is liable to be modified and accordingly by fixing the market value at the rate of Rs.3,51,835/- per acre it is modified. The compensation amount awarded so far as to the house property does not require any interference and thus it is confirmed. In terms of this the appeal succeeds in part. Hence, we proceed to pass the following ORDER Appeal is allowed in part. For the acquired land the compensation is redetermined at Rs.3,51,835/- per acre. The other statutory benefits awarded by the reference Court is not disturbed and shall pay accordingly.